kurt

So, he's saying the brick is the counterflashing? What's the brick bearing on?

I think it's 1976, maybe a little earlier. I've never read a definitive statement to that effect; I sort of figured it out back in the 80's when I noticed the new stuff had ANSI dates, and the old stuff didn't. I narrowed it down to (approximately) 1976 on my own. Anyone know for sure? I've googled it but didn't find anything.

No ANSI # means pre-1976, doesn't it? I'd say late 60's, early 70's.

Oh. I guess that's a benefit of the high rez; my images all look better than that. They're so clear, I don't even need to do the Fusion thing; it's a very clear IR image. So, the Flir technology provides the benefit of high rez without the cost.

".......and a remediation estimate submitted for escrow." Not only is he a mold expert, he's providing legal guidance. This is a clue he's not particularly bright. No, it's not the future. Everyone has the right to be stupid. These people are just exercising their rights. It's slowly going away. The medical profession has never gotten behind this, and it's extremely unlikely they are ever going to. Except for the dork professional societies that have found it's a revenue stream to teach wannabe's, it would go away quicker. Pogo was right.

What's the blended part? It looks like a pic from my device.

Is that last pic a wormhole to parallel a universe?

I got it, read it. Thanks, always helpful. Yes, Jim's description is spot on for this type of activity, and your report was credible. The report describes a lot of stuff that is, without trying to sound too jaded or cynical, par for the course (sort of, with variables). Unless something really crazy shows up, I'd get it fixed, paint it, and move on with my life.

320x240 image quality is, without question, better. My point is, I don't think one really needs it to do a good job and make accurate assessments for building diagnostics.

I think you're right. You got to get into high Rez to get interchangeable lenses. So, you think hi Rez is that much better? I waffle, wondering if it really is. Not for building diagnostics anyway. Machinery for sure, but not buildings.

They're all pretty good now. If I was going to get one today, I'd go Fluke Ti100. It's really all one needs. Feels really good in the hand; ergonomic, light. No interchangeable lenses, but you probably don't care; doing full tilt whole building work (where you need a wide angle) is boring. About $2200-2500.

I agree on using IR for EIFS; I don't think it's necessary. Same thing with flat roofing; I wouldn't bother with IR for roofing. The problems come from scheduling; if you're looking at stucco or roofing, you have to wait for the optimum conditions, which are often at strange times.

I've had a 320x240 Fluke for several years. I obsessed so much about it at the time, I thought I had to have high rez; now, I'm not so sure. I think 160x120 is fine for building diagnostics. You want interchangeable lenses, 2 batteries and a charger, and good general handling characteristics. If you get into whole building scanning, you need a wide angle; it's not just a want...you need it. Otherwise, it takes forever. A lightweight camera would be nice; it gets surprisingly heavy holding it out in front of you at the proper orientations for long periods of time, and if you're doing a lot of scans, it takes long periods of time. I wouldn't own a battery powered tool that didn't have a couple batteries and a charger.

Rheostat. I remember them in the school auditorium for banks of lights.

I remember reading about this method years ago. It was one of many ideas for post WWII housing in Chicago. Crazy. I've only seen a couple of them. They're freezing in winter.

There's a few of those in Skokie. Where was this house? Air quality for the Skokie houses is really lousy; they smell musty.

Sure, I'd take a copy.

Did Forensic find any damage under the siding?

Read Mr. O's post #13. While most don't realize it, building inspectors are code enforcement officers. The building code is a body of law adopted by a municipality. They may not agree with what they're charged to enforce, but they are obliged to enforce the law. Also, when the guy refers you to an electrician, there's a lot more background activity going on that can go into multitudes of obscure and/or ridiculous (but very real) legal implications. Background activity in the depts. I worked in was tied up most tidily by simply insisting they get a licensed guy to spec and do the work. There's a clean paper trail. We were bureaucrats, after all. So, stop wasting fuel thinking about the muni guy. It isn't going anywhere. At base, no one cares what a civilian thinks. Not trying to be insulting; just stating a fact.

I've not ever seen one. The U of M study indicates it's an accepted method, although reduction rates are not always successful as sub slab suction. I'm leery of the idea; seems like a lot of opportunity for screw ups.

Anyone familiar with pressurization remedial practices? I got a guy buying in Aspen, the house is some kind of wonder-manse on a river, there's a million dollar water management system, and it can't have sub-slab suction. I'm aware that pressurization is a recognized remediation practice, but I've never seen nor heard of one. Is it a standard practice elsewhere? (I've already got the guy calling Garet in Denver. If there's anyone else out there you trust, lemme know.)

Yes. Listen to Mark. High ladder work is daunting, and if you aren't REALLY accustomed to the work (you aren't), don't do it. Willingness to learn is the starting base for all DIY. Read up on installation guidelines. Look at other peoples houses. Put up some better pics. Take an establishing shot (wider angle to establish what it is we're looking at), then a lot of close ups from various angles. "Explain" with pictures what you have. Since you probably aren't experienced driving nails with a hammer, you may have to drill and nail, or maybe even secure some components with screws. Yes, I'm already going outside the parameters of the installation guidelines, but some amount of creativity may be necessary to fix this without going all in and reworking the entire house. (ooops...you posted while I was. So, you're going to do ladder work. OK. You may still be way better off hiring a carpenter to fix the siding, then you do the paint.)

Rule #1: Don't argue with the municipal inspector. The blowback will always far exceed any imagined benefit.

The only point that gives pause is possible problems with the WRB (housewrap). If you have a problem, you can't fix it, and you may or may not experience problems. Time will tell. After that, the forensic specialists points describe almost all jobs. Not that it's good or right, but without context, these sorts of observations are useful only to class action attorneys. Since you can't fix the housewrap, fix what you can. Two points: 1) You don't know how to fix stuff, but are interested in learning. 2) Your husband has no interest in fixing or learning. The positions cancel each other to zero, possibly to negative interest territory when spouse conflict issues are factored in. Get someone to fix it. Carpentry is very basic; it's about doing, not talking. Folks inclined toward very long paragraphs are usually better at very long paragraphs than carpentry. No offense intended; you seem lovely, but my crystal ball says any attempt by you will result in frustration. You can paint. Focus on learning how to paint. Paint the joint after someone else fixes it.

Janineanne.... There is a tendency to complicate and obfuscate what are, at base, very simple carpentry tasks. That seems to be happening here. You may have a mess on your hands, but I doubt it. It looks manageable. Do not be afraid of the installation instructions; they're actually relatively simple. The skill set for installation is also relatively simple. I have taught complete amateurs with no experience whatsoever how to install cement siding perfectly. It's not hard to carry, set up, or install. I am mildly shocked that some make it out to be so complicated. Caulking is not complicated either. There's some science and art, but I assure you, you can handle it with a little patience and persistence. Better yet, don't caulk; use flashing strips that Hardi recommends you use. The flashing strips work fine. It's not particularly fragile; I don't know why Mark is saying it is. There are procedures for handling it, that if followed, work. It's not like the stuff has a molecular breakdown if you sneeze; you have to work at it to screw it up. (FTR, I see morons working really hard to screw it up, and they succeed. They are the same morons that don't ever read instructions, don't know how to nail, and dismiss any idea that's not already in their head.) You can handle it. It's only a house. Folks fix them all the time. You can too. You do stuff every day that's ten times more complicated than installing siding. If you really want to fix your house, you will find your way. You can do it. Take a few more pictures, post them, let's see what's going on.